In what language was the Bible first written? | Biblica - The International Bible Society In what language was the Bible first written? In what language was the Bible first written? The first human author to write down the biblical record was Moses. He was commanded by God to take on this task, for Exodus 34:27 records God’s words to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” And what language did he use? He wrote in his native language, called Hebrew. Hebrew is one of a group of languages known as the Semitic languages which were spoken throughout that part of the world, then called Mesopotamia, located today mainly in Iraq. Their alphabet consisted of 22 letters, all consonants. (Imagine having an alphabet with no vowels! Much later they did add vowels.) During the thousand years of its composition, almost the entire Old Testament was written in Hebrew. But a few chapters in the prophecies of Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah were written in a language called Aramaic. This language became very popular in the ancient world and actually displaced many other languages.

Aramaic even became the common language spoken in Israel in Jesus’ time, and it was likely the language He spoke day by day. Some Aramaic words were even used by the Gospel writers in the New Testament. The New Testament, however, was written in Greek. This seems strange, since you might think it would be either Hebrew or Aramaic. However, Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD. The fact is that many Jews could not even read Hebrew anymore, and this disturbed the Jewish leaders a lot! So, around 300 BC a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek was undertaken, and it was completed around 200 BC. Gradually this Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, was widely accepted and was even used in many synagogues. It also became a wonderful missionary tool for the early Christians, for now the Greeks could read God’s Word in their own tongue. So the New Testament authors wrote in Greek. They did not, however, use really high-class or classical Greek, but a very common and everyday type of Greek.

For many years some scholars ridiculed the Greek of the New Testament because many of its words were strange to those who read the writings of the great Greek classical authors such as Plato and Aristotle. But later many records were uncovered of ordinary people, and amazingly there were the same common terms used in everyday speech! The ridicule dried up accordingly. The earliest copies of parts of the Hebrew Old Testament were discovered in 1947. They are part of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls and actually date back to the first century BC. Even though they are at least 900 years older than any parts of the Bible we had before this, they are not the originals. They are copies. The originals have all been lost or destroyed. But we are not at all doubtful that we may not have the original text. Copying by scribes was done with great care in those days and because the text was regarded as sacred, the copyists were extremely painstaking. Today some 5000 hand-copied documents exist of all or part of the Bible, and they agree in 98% of the text! No other ancient writing has this amount of underlying support with such amazing agreement as to the text. Yes, we do have what God wanted us to have!

By way of translation, we now have His revelation in our own language and in 2300 other languages, too. Today we have the very Bible that comes to us from the three languages used in the original. Truly we can say, “God speaks my language, too!” Back to FAQs Do you have questions about the Bible? Visit our FAQs page for in-depth answers to important questions. The Original Language of the New Testament: Part One The Original Language of the New Testament Part One By Gary F. Zeolla The New Testament was originally written in Greek. This is what I have been taught and believed as long as I have been a Christian. But there are some who claim the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. This would mean the Greek manuscripts are just translations of this Aramaic original. This two-part article will look at this and related claims. Note: Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture references are taken from the Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament: Second Edition (ALT). Interest in Aramaic For the most part, the Old Testament (OT) was originally written in Hebrew. On this, there is little debate.

But there are a couple of small sections that were written in Aramaic (Ezra 4:8-6:18, 7:12-26; Daniel chapters 2-7, and one verse in Jeremiah). Aramaic is similar but not identical to Hebrew. By the time of Christ, Jews living in Judea for the most part spoke Aramaic. This is seen in the movie The Passion of the Christ with the entire dialog being in Aramaic (with English subtitles). It is possibly due to this movie that there has been a resurgence of interest in Aramaic. But long before this, one notable proponent of the idea of an Aramaic original for the New Testament (NT) was George Lamsa. His Lamsa's Bible (published in 1957) was translated from the Syriac Peshitta. Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic. In the introduction to Lasma's Bible are claimed evidences for an Aramaic Original for the NT. Papias One commonly cited evidence for an Aramaic original for the NT is a statement made by the Church Father Papias.

The translation of this statement is rather difficult as will be discussed in a minute. But below is the translation of this statement as found in the book The Apostolic Fathers by Lightfoot and Harmer. So then Matthew composed the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as he could (p. 529). This quote is used as evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. This claim is discussed in depth in the introduction to the commentary on Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Vol. 8, pages 3-17). I cannot repeat all of the arguments from these pages here. But I will give a couple of highlights. As stated, the translation of the sentence is difficult. First, the word "Hebrew" could also be rendered "Aramaic." But most important is the word "oracles." The Greek word is the plural form of "logos." It's most basic meaning is "word" or "saying." So it seems likely Matthew is referring to the words of Jesus. But the Gospel of Matthew includes much more than this. It also includes narrative by Matthew and accounts of the actions of Jesus.

Now Luke does use a form of "logos" to refer to his Gospel (Acts 1:1). But it is in the singular, not plural. And Luke specifically says that what he wrote included the things "which Jesus began both to be doing and to be teaching." So it is generally rendered as "account." But by putting it in the plural, Papias seems to indicate he is not referring to a singular, complete "account" as Luke is but of specific "words." Hence "sayings" seems to be the best translation. So it's possible that Papias is referring to something other than the canonical Gospel. One theory is it is the so-called "Q" source of the sayings of Jesus that some have theorized the Gospel writers used. Or maybe it was an earlier draft by Matthew that he himself later used to compose his Gospel. Or it is even possible that Matthew wrote two versions of his Gospel, one in Greek and one in Aramaic. So there are various possibilities as to what is meant by Papias' statement. As such, this one vague statement does not necessary prove that canonical Gospel Of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. Moreover, the statement only refers to the Gospel of Matthew.

It has no bearing on the original language of the rest of the NT. The Use of the Septuagint Expositor's goes into detail on the various reasons the Gospel of Matthew was not originally written in Aramaic. One of the strongest is that Matthew quotes from the Septuagint. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT from the third century B.C. It is abbreviated as "LXX." The name and abbreviation are based on the tradition that 70 or 72 Jewish scholars worked on the translation, six from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. For the second edition of the ALT, I carefully reviewed all of the quotes in the NT from the OT. I included the notation "LXX" after the OT verse reference when the wording of the quote in the NT differed from the wording of the source verse in the Hebrew but was similar or even identical to that of the LXX. And there were many such instances in Matthew and the rest of the NT, far more than I had originally thought.

For instance, there are six places in the Gospel of Matthew where the OT quote is clearly from the LXX (3:3; 12:21; 13:14,15; 15:8,9; 19:5; 21:16). It should also be noted that there are also many times when the wording of the NT quotation is basically identical to that of the Hebrew text but differs from the LXX. So in those passages the NT writer was obviously quoting from the Hebrew (e.g. Matthew 2:15). And there are times when the quote in the NT, the Hebrew, and the LXX are all basically the same. So the NT writer could have been quoting from either the Hebrew or the LXX (e.g. Matthew 1:23). So having studied the issue, it is apparent the NT writers were familiar with both the Hebrew text of the OT and with the LXX, and they freely quoted from either of these. But if Matthew were writing in Aramaic for a strictly Aramaic speaking audience, it would have been more logical for him to have used the Hebrew Scriptures throughout.

Moreover, as Expositor's states, "It cannot be argued that the alleged translator decided to use the LXX for all OT quotations in order to save himself some work, for only some of them are from the LXX" (p.13). Moreover, there are also cases where only the form of the OT verse as it appears in the LXX would "fit" in the context in which the NT writer is quoting the verse. For instance, Matthew 21:14-16 reads: 14And lame and blind [people] came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. 15But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the marvelous [things] which He did, and the children crying out in the temple and saying, "We give praise to You, the Son of David," they expressed indignation. 16And they said to Him, "Do You hear what these [ones] are saying?" But Jesus says to them, "Yes, did you* never read, ‘Out of [the] mouth of young children and nursing infants You prepared praise for Yourself?'" [Psalm 8:2, LXX]. Verse 16 includes a quotation from Psalm 8:2.

This verse reads in the NKJV (which is translated from the Hebrew), "Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have ordained strength." Not only is this significantly different from how the quote appears in the NT, but this wording would not "fit" in the context. The passage is talking about "praise" not "strength." However, this verse reads in Lancelot Brenton's translation of the LXX, "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise." The differences in wording between this translation and how I translated the quote is simply due to translation differences; the Greek text is identical in the LXX and in NT. So in this passage, the quote is clearly from the LXX and only the way the verse is worded in the LXX would fit in the context. So the LXX is clearly the original source for the quote, not the Hebrew text. And what makes this particularly interesting is this a statement of Jesus. So it was Jesus who originally used the LXX in his discussion with the "the chief priests and the scribes." More on the import of this in a minute.

But here, it should be noted that this use of the LXX only makes sense if the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Greek. And similar instances could be given for other books of the NT. The Language of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Writers of the NT Lamsa claims, "The Gospels, as well as the Epistles, were written in Aramaic, the language of the Jewish people in Palestine and in the Greco-Roman world" (p.ix). And further, "For several centuries, the Christian movement was directed and guided by the Jews. All of the apostles and the evangelists were Jewish" (p.xi). So Lamsa is claiming Jesus, the apostles, the Gospel writers, and their audience spoke Aramaic. And further he is claiming that the Church was primary Jewish and remained so for centuries. And it is true that Jesus and the original apostles were Jews. And it is true that for the most part Jews in Palestine at that time spoke Aramaic. However, Luke, the writer of two NT books (the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts) was most likely a Gentile.

Luke's writings were directed towards "most excellent Theophilus." This is a Greek name and title for a person of rank in the Roman government (see Acts 23:26; 24:30). So Theophilus was most likely a Gentile who spoke Greek. Furthermore, Luke writes in Acts 1:18,19: 18(This one indeed then acquired a field by [the] payment of [his] unrighteousness, and having fallen headfirst, he burst open in the middle and all his inward parts were poured out. 19And it became known to all the ones living in Jerusalem, with the result that that place is called, in their own language [i.e. Aramaic], Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.) This paragraph appears within a discourse by Peter. However, I put these verses in parentheses in the ALT as they do not seem to be a part of Peter's discourse. They are most likely comments added my Luke for the benefit of the readers of the Book of Acts. In this comments Luke refers to "their own language." I added the explanatory note that this is Aramaic. Again, for the most part this is true.

But note that Luke then translated the Aramaic term for his readers. So it appears he was writing in Greek for people who knew only Greek. If he had been writing in Aramaic to Aramaic readers, it would have been unnecessary to provide a translation. It should also be noted that Luke's translation of "field of blood" appears in Lamsa's Bible as well. So it cannot be claimed that the supposed translator of the Aramaic original into Greek added this translation. It appears in the Aramaic text. This only makes sense if in fact the Book of Acts was written in Greek and was then translated into Aramaic. And with Acts being a follow-up to the Gospel of Luke, it is only logical that Luke was written in Greek as well. Going back to the Gospel of Matthew, it contains this interesting bit of information about Matthew, "And passing by from there, Jesus saw a man sitting at the tax-office, being called Matthew, and He says to him, "Be following Me!" And having stood up, he followed Him" (Matthew 9:9). Matthew was collecting taxes from Jews for the Roman government.

To engage in such a business would have required him to have known Aramaic to be able to speak to the Jews, but he also would had to have known Greek (and maybe Latin) to have spoken to the Roman officials. Then there's this interesting exchange in John 12:20-22: 20Now [there] were some Greeks from the ones going up so that they should prostrate themselves in worship at the feast. 21Then these [Greeks] came to Philip, the [one] from Bethsaida of Galilee, and were asking him, saying, "Lord [or, Sir], we desire to see Jesus." 22Philip comes and tells Andrew, and again Andrew and Philip tell Jesus. So Philip, one of the apostles, was able to converse with Greeks. And it appears he brought these Greeks to Andrew and then to Jesus. Jesus' subsequent discourse is then addressed to "them" (v.23). The "them" probably included these visiting Greeks. So it's very possible Jesus' subsequent discourse was in Greek. As for Peter, the difference between the Greek of his two epistles is instructive.

The first is written in very stylistic Greek while the second is written in very simple Greek. So the first appears to be written by someone very familiar with the Greek language while someone for whom Greek was a second language probably wrote the second. Some have used this difference to claim that 2Peter was not actually written by Peter. But a better explanation is seen in the text itself. 1Peter ends with the following: 12By Silvanus, the faithful brother as I consider [him], through [whom] I wrote a few [words], encouraging and testifying this to be [the] true grace of God in which you* have stood firm (5:12). "By Silvanus … through [whom] I wrote a few [words]" indicates that Peter probably dedicated his first epistle to Silvanus. In writing down the dictation, Silvanus probably "cleaned up" Peter's crude Greek. But the second epistle contains no such "by" line. So it was written directly by Peter and contains the kind of Greek you would expect from a fisherman for whom Greek was a second language.

So Jesus, at least some of the apostles, and the Gospel writers Matthew and Luke most likely knew Greek. Similarly, Paul, the writer of half of the books of the NT, clearly knew both Aramaic and Greek. This is seen in the following passage from Acts: 37And Paul being about to be brought into the barracks says to the commanding officer, "Is it permitted for me to speak to you?" Then he said, "Do you know Greek? 38So you are not the Egyptian, the one having incited a riot before these days and having led the four thousand men of the assassins into the desert, are you?" 39But Paul said, "I indeed am a man, a Jew of Tarsus of Cilicia, a citizen of no insignificant [fig., an important] city. Now I implore you, permit me to speak to the people." 1"Men, brothers and fathers, now pay attention to my defense to you*." 2Now they having heard that in the Hebrew dialect he was speaking to them, they gave [him] even more silence. (Acts 21:37-22:2).

And finally, to re-iterate from before, OT quotes that are clearly taken from the LXX appear throughout the NT. Quotes from the LXX appear in all four Gospels, Acts, Romans, 1Corinthians, Ephesians, 2Timothy, Hebrews, James, and 1Peter. So writers of all of these books had to have known Greek and have been writing in Greek. The most interesting book in this list is the Epistle to the Hebrews. There are seven quotes from or clear references to the LXX in Hebrews (1:6; 2:13; 8:12; 10:6,7; 11:20; 12:5,6; 12:12). So although written to Hebrews, the writer was clearly writing in Greek and most likely to Greek-speaking Jews. What Were the Original Languages of the New Testament Scriptures? W HILE most of western Christianity holds firmly to the belief that the New Testament was written originally in Greek, millions of Christians in the Eastern Orthodox traditions believe just as fervently that the New Testament (NT) was written originally in Aramaic.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ There can some room for disagreement regarding the original languages of most of the books of the NT. However, it is documented beyond all doubts that the original Gospel by Matthew was written in Hebrew ï¿½ not Aramaic, and certainly not Greek. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ David Bivin and Roy Blizzard wrote an excellent book called Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus which was published by Makor Foundation, Arcadia CA 91006 ï¿½ 1983. Bivin & Blizzard presented a considerable amount of extra-biblical evidence for a Hebrew original of the Gospel of Matthew, particularly with quotes from many of the Ante-Nicean ï¿½church fathers,ï¿½ that is, the leaders of the Christian church prior to the Council of Nicea in 325 CE.

[1] Bivin and Blizzard provide us with the following quotes from the ï¿½church fathersï¿½ on pages 45 to 48: ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Eusebius, quoting Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis (mid-second century CE), writes: ï¿½Matthew put down the words of the Lord in the Hebrew language, and others have translated them, each as best he could.ï¿½ [2] Irenaeus (120-202 CE) stated: ï¿½Matthew, indeed, produced his Gospel written to the Hebrews in their own dialect.ï¿½ [3] Origen (first quarter 4th Century) stated: ï¿½The first (Gospel), composed in the Hebrew language, was written by Matthew ï¿½ for those who came to faith from Judaism.ï¿½ [4] Eusebius, writing in 325 CE, said: ï¿½Matthew had first preached to the Hebrews, and when he was about to go to others also, he transmitted his Gospel in writing in his native language.ï¿½ [5]

 Jerome was very knowledgeable in Hebrew, having translated the Bible (both the Tanakh and the NT) into the Latin translation called the Vulgate.

Jerome wrote: ï¿½Matthew was the first in Judea to compose the gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters and words ï¿½ Who it was that later translated it into Greek is no longer known with certainty. Furthermore, the Hebrew text itself is still preserved in the library at Caesarea which the martyr Pamphilus assembled with great care.ï¿½ [6] ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ The undisputable fact is that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, certainly not in Greek. Bivin and Blizzard in their book go on to make sense of many of Yeshuaï¿½s more difficult sayings in light of the fact that Yeshua spoke these sayings in Hebrew, not Greek. Since Yeshua taught in Hebrew to a Hebrew audience, many theological controversies are rendered meaningless when understood against a Hebrew background.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Many Hebrew idioms are nearly impossible for non-Hebrew speaking persons to understand, much as many English idioms are hard for non-English speaking persons to understand ï¿½ sayings such as ï¿½Hit the ceiling,ï¿½ ï¿½Kill time,ï¿½ or ï¿½Eat your heart out.ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Bivin and Blizzard are both devout Christians. But as they state regarding the NT: ï¿½The writers are Hebrew, the culture is Hebrew, the traditions are Hebrew, the concepts are Hebrew.ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Back in the 1800ï¿½s, some highly educated ï¿½intellectualsï¿½ got together and decided that the language of Jews in first century ï¿½ Palestine ï¿½ [7] was Aramaic. Some 5,000 rabbinic parables from that period of time have come down to us, all in Hebrew.

Extensive archeological excavations since 1968 have taken place in Israel . No Aramaic inscriptions from the Roman period have been found. As Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Bernard S. Baskas [8] wrote in his article, ï¿½The Original Words of Jesusï¿½: ï¿½In studying the Greek text of the Christian scriptures, it is clear from the substance, the syntax, and even the mistranslations that it was all written first in Hebrew, and then translated into Greek.ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Bivin and Blizzard contend that many mistranslations of language, concepts, and idioms can have far-reaching theological ramifications. One example can be found in one of the Beatitudes, rendered as, ï¿½Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness sake.ï¿½ This statement, attributed to Jesus, greatly contributed to the idea that one could gain religious merit by suffering persecution and martyrdom.

Bivin and Blizzard believe the original Hebrew word that Yeshua used was radaf, which can mean 1.) ï¿½pursueï¿½ or ï¿½chase,ï¿½ and 2.) ï¿½persecute.ï¿½ It would make no sense, for instance, to translated Isaiah 51:1 as, ï¿½Listen to me you who persecute (radaf) righteousness.ï¿½ Context forces us to translate it to ï¿½ï¿½you who pursue righteousness.ï¿½ Likewise, Yeshuaï¿½s words should read, ï¿½Blessed are those who pursue righteousness,ï¿½ which is an exact quote of Torah as found in Deuteronomy 16:20 . ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Where I part company with Bivin and Blizzard is that these men then go on to try to reconstruct a Hebrew gospel backwards from the Greek Matthew, which they recognize as a translation which was originally translated from Hebrew. This would be like someone taking this article, translating it into Finnish, and then someone else translating it back into English.

This process that Bivin and Blizzard went to is kind of unnecessary, because there already are ancient Hebrew Matthew gospels out there. They end up constructing a ï¿½Hebrew Matthewï¿½ considerably longer than what we currently have in the Greek. Very strange. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ The great scholar, Hugh J Schonfield, published his Bï¿½sorot Matti: An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthewï¿½s Gospel way back in 1927. [9] He dedicated his book ï¿½to my wife and to my fellow-members of the International Hebrew Christian Alliance.ï¿½ Regretfully, Schonfield became an apostate to the faith in his later years. However, the research and scholarship of his early years were superb. It is all the more impressive because he did it all without the benefits of a computer or the Internet.

He also had very little in the way of modern Messianic Jewish scholarship, or even other Jewish believers who observed a pro-Torah lifestyle.ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Schonfield did his English translation from an ancient Hebrew translation called the ï¿½DuTillettï¿½ version. The Hebrew manuscript was obtained (stolen?) by Jean DuTillet, Bishop of Brieu. In 1553, Pople Julius III signed a decree banning the Talmud in Rome . Anything that looked like a Talmud was confiscated, that is, anything besides Torah that was written in Hebrew characters. DuTillet, who was visiting Rome at that time, ï¿½acquiredï¿½ this Hebrew manuscript of Matthew, which had been stolen from the Jews. He returned to France with his discovery, where it remains in the Biblioteque Nationale, Paris . This is also the text that was used by James Scott Trimm in his Bï¿½sorot Matti: The Good News According to Matthew.

[10] Trimm points out that the genealogy of Yeshua ï¿½should contain three sets of 14 names (Mt. 1:17 ); however, the Greek only contains 13 names in the last setï¿½ This discrepancy takes us by surprise, since the text indicates there SHOULD be 14 names. Our Hebrew text, however, DOES contain 14 names in the last list. In verse 13, we see the missing name ï¿½Avnerï¿½ between ï¿½Avichudï¿½ and ï¿½Elyakim.ï¿½ Since Avner looks in Hebrew similar to Avichud, it is apparent that a careless scribe looked back up to the list and picked up after ï¿½Avner,ï¿½ mistaking it for ï¿½Avichud.ï¿½ This scribal error shows clearly that the Hebrew text came BEFORE the Greek text, which is affected by the later scribal error.ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Another scholar, George Howard, published The Gospel of Matthew According to a Primitive Hebrew Text.

[11] His translation was from the ï¿½Shem Tovï¿½ Hebrew Matthew, also called the ï¿½Even Bohan.ï¿½ This was a Hebrew Matthew that was preserved in an anti-Christian polemic written by Shem-Tob ben-Isaac ben Shaprut in around 1380. Shem-Tob quoted from a Hebrew Matthew which had been preserved from ancient times. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ George Howard, on page x, tells of various other ancient Hebrew Matthews, which are in various libraries, including the British Library in London, Bodleian Library in Oxford, and the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. OTHER BOOKS OF THE NT: There is a saying: ï¿½Someone convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.ï¿½ Despite the overwhelming evidence, there will be some out there who will reject any idea that any of the books of the NT were originally written in any other language besides Greek.

It is perhaps a religious conviction, blindly held to by some, and is somehow a ï¿½threatï¿½ to their faith to hear of any books of the NT being written originally in any other languages besides Greek. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ This might be a shocker to some, but Jesus and the Apostles did not speak in King James English. The translators who were responsible for the King James Bible are to be commended for the superb job they did. However, it is a translation based on the Greek, which was not the original language in which most of the NT was originally written. For greatest accuracy in understanding the words and intent of the authors of the books of the NT, it can be helpful to obtain translations of the NT based upon the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the NT. I am not about to trash my KJV or my New American Standard translations of the NT. These translations are commendable translations, and they are close to what most English-speaking people are familiar with. However, in my studies, I have occasionally received additional insight from the Hebrew and Aramaic that would not be found in the KJV or NAS.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ It should be noted at this point that for most of the books of the NT, the oldest existing manuscripts are in Aramaic. This does not necessarily mean that the original books of the NT were written in Aramaic; it may simply mean that the Greek manuscripts didnï¿½t fare as well in the damp climates of Europe as did the Aramaic manuscripts of the much dryer Middle East . However, the fact that the oldest NT manuscripts are in Aramaic does lend credibility to the notion that the Aramaic NT predated the Greek NT. Also, Aramaic would be closer to any possible Hebrew originals, and therefore more likely to follow the original intent of the authors of various NT authors. The autograph (or original) manuscripts actually penned by the authors of the NT have long since passed away into oblivion, so all of the ancient manuscripts are hand-written copies of other ancient manuscripts. You might have noticed that I have written this article in English. The reason for this is because this is the language in which I am most proficient, and it is also the language in which most of the readers are most proficient.

While I would like to write this article in Hebrew, my proficiency in Hebrew is not nearly as good as my proficiency in English, and most of our readers wouldnï¿½t be able to read it. Therefore, I wrote it in English. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ It should be noted that the Four Gospels were all penned by Galilean Jews, who lived in northern Israel . Although Hebrew was most certainly the spoken language of Jerusalem and in the rest of Judea , many scholars are of the opinion that Aramaic was the language of the Galilee region. It is highly unlikely that these Galileans spoke Greek, or if they did, they spoke it as a second language. The languages in which they had the highest proficiency would have been Hebrew or Aramaic. In addition to the Gospels, it can be safely assumed that the Book of Revelation, as well as Hebrews, James, and Jude were originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic, because they were directed to Hebrew or Aramaic speaking audiences.

It should be noted that Matthew is the only book of the NT in which extant ancient Hebrew versions are available, although most of the NT books can be found in ancient Aramaic manuscripts. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ The majority of the believers in Yeshua during the First Century CE were Jews and/or converts to Judaism. It is only logical that the writers of the Four Gospels wrote in a language in which they were most proficient, and also by happy coincidence the language that was understood by most of the readers of these Gospel accounts, which would have been Hebrew for the Gospel of Matthew and possibly Aramaic or Hebrew for the other Gospels. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ I am willing to concede that some of the books of the NT might have been written originally in Greek, particularly when they were written to Gentile audiences, such the epistles to the Corinthians or to the Galatians. Greek was still very much an international language, as a result of the Greek conquest of much of southern Europe , and western Asia in the Fourth Century BCE.

[12] However, by the time of Yeshua, this same area was now under Roman rule, and Latin was in its ascendancy. Rav Shaul (ï¿½Paulï¿½) was a Roman citizen. [13] He was probably proficient in both Greek, and therefore wrote his epistles in Greek to some of the Gentile congregations. However, as a Roman citizen, he was also proficient in Latin, and had spent considerable time in Rome where Latin was the primary language, as well as in Tarsus , where Latin was a second language. It is highly unlikely that Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans in Greek, because almost nobody in Rome would have even understood him. In this case, and this case only, the language would in all likelihood have been written in Latin. Why would Paul write to First Century Italians in Greek if he knew Latin? Itï¿½s totally illogical. Perhaps the Latin Vulgate should be preferred for those wanting a better understanding of Rav Shaulï¿½s letter to the Romans.

Aramaic New Testaments ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ George Lamsaï¿½s English translation of the Aramaic Bible (both OT & NT) was published by Harper & Row, ï¿½ 1933. Lamsa follows fairly closely with the KJV, so I donï¿½t know how much this is an actual translation of the Aramaic. Lamsa also follows the book order that we are familiar with in Christian bibles for both the OT and NT, making it familiar to its readers. Lamsaï¿½s translation is based on the Peshitta, which is sort of the ï¿½Textus Receptusï¿½ [14] of the Syriac church of the east. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ One of the primary advantages of the Aramaic NT is that we donï¿½t have to learn a whole new alphabet. The modern Hebrew alef-bet is actually the Aramaic alphabet. Aramaic is a different language, but is very obviously related to the Hebrew, both being Semitic languages.

Abraham came originally from Ur of the Chaldees, and no doubt spoke an ancient version of Aramaic. Hebrew was actually the language of the Canaanites! Quoting the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Judaica, [15] p.247, ï¿½Pre-biblical Hebrew was spoken in Canaan before the Israelite conquest.ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ In the Babylonian Captivity beginning about 600 BCE, generations of Jews became more fluent in the Aramaic of their adopted land than they were in the Hebrew of their ancestors. After returning to Israel , many Jews continued speaking Aramaic. However, even among those who returned to Israel and resumed speaking Hebrew, the ancient Hebrew alef-bet fell into disuse, as it has to this day. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ An excellent NT translation was completed by James Trimm, the Hebraic-Roots Version ï¿½New Testament.ï¿½ [16] Some of this volume is word-for-word from other earlier translators.

However, it is convenient in that Trimm has assembled the scholarship of many earlier writers in one convenient volume, although he doesnï¿½t always give them credit. I strongly disagree with Trimm in his connections with Kabbalah, much of which is Jewish occult, but occult nonetheless. Nevertheless, I do find Trimmï¿½s NT to be the most useful and readable of any English translation of the Aramaic NT. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Judaica: The Language of the New Testament: Although the language of the New Testament, in the form that it exists, today is Greek, two earlier influences are discernible. 1.) The Influence of the Aramaic-Hebrew Original. Because most of the authors were Jewish Nazarenes, they spoke, for the most part, Aramaic, and some also Mishnaic Hebrew. This influence, which was detectable particularly in the original versions of Mark and Matthew, survives to some degree in their extant Greek versions and in several of the Epistles as well, including James and Jude. The rest of the works were originally written in Greek. 2.) The Septuagint.

Since this translation was used by many authors, the NT contains not only Aramaic words and phrases, which the disciples heard from Jesus and took care to remember out of reverence for their master (e.g., Talitha Kumi ï¿½ Marke 5:41; Kum; Rabboni; and Eli, Eli lama sabachthani ï¿½ Mat. 27:46), but also expressions and phrases which retain their Hebrew flavor although they were transmitted through the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ Trimmï¿½s NT occasionally gives insights that we would never get from a Greek NT. For instance, Acts 11:27-30 (KJV) reads, ï¿½And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch . And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world, which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea , which also they did, and sent it to the elders by hands of Barnabas and Saul.ï¿½ As Trimm points out, this makes no sense. Why would those in Antioch send relief to those in Judea if the famine were to strike the world? They would soon be facing famine themselves. The solution lies in the fact that the word for world in the Aramaic manuscripts is aï¿½ra, related to the Hebrew word eretz, which can mean world, as in Prov. 19:4, earth, as in Daniel 9:35, or land, as in Daniel 9:15. Even today, the Israeli euphemism HaEretz (ï¿½the Landï¿½) is used to mean not ï¿½the world,ï¿½ but ï¿½the Land (of Israel ).ï¿½ Therefore, the good folks at Antioch were happy to send aid to Judea , because they themselves were not going to be afflicted by the famine. Another difficult passage is Matthew 26:6.

ï¿½And when Jesus was in Bethany , at the house of Simon the leperï¿½ï¿½ According to Leviticus 13:46, ï¿½lepersï¿½ were not permitted to live in the city. Since ancient Hebrew and Aramaic were written without vowels, there was no distinction in spelling between the Aramaic garï¿½ba (leper) and garaba (jar merchant). As Trimm points out, in the very next verse (Mat. 26:7), a woman pours oil from a ï¿½jar.ï¿½ It is apparent that Simon was a jar merchant, and not a leper. Trimmï¿½s NT is the most useful of all the various translations of the Aramaic NT. For one thing, it is highly readable. Previously, I purchased one English translation of the Aramaic called The Aramaic New Covenant ï¿½ 1996, published by Exegesis Bibles. It was so literal as to be completely unreadable, whereas Trimmï¿½s translation is very readable. Trimmï¿½s notes alone are almost worth the cost of purchasing his NT.

They contain a wealth of information. But the notes (and footnotes) are in tiny fonts that are very difficult to read. There are many Hebrew-Aramaic idioms used in the NT, such as when Miriam (ï¿½Maryï¿½) was told by the angel that she would become pregnant with a baby who would be known as ï¿½the Son of the Most High.ï¿½ She protested, saying, ï¿½How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?ï¿½ That sounds foolish in English, but makes perfect sense in Hebrew. In English, I can say that I know Martha, and it just means that I am acquainted with her. However, in Hebrew idiom, to say that you know someone means that you have known them intimately, that is, carnal knowledge. When Miriam said, ï¿½I know not a man (Luke 1:34 ),ï¿½ it was her way of saying she was a virgin. In this case, the Greek NT literally translated the Hebrew original, which was in turn literally translated by the KJV translators.

These are only a few of many instances in which it is self-evident that the original languages of most books of the NT were Aramaic or Hebrew. Aramaic continued to be popular among Jews for several centuries, since it also was a sort of lingua franca (or international language) in the ancient world. In the Talmud, the Mishna (commentary on Torah) was written in Hebrew. However, the Gemara (commentary on the Mishna) was written in Aramaic. In fact, the word Gemara is an Aramaic term meaning ï¿½completion.ï¿½ Many other Rabbinic works were also done in Aramaic, including some prayers such as the Kaddish. Also, the wedding Ketubahs are also written in Aramaic. Aramaic has become a Jewish language! Iï¿½m not knocking the Greek. It is certainly more precise than the Hebrew, and can add to some additional understanding of the text. But ancient Greek is even more complex than biblical Hebrew, more like Latin. Itï¿½s amazing that people actually spoke such difficult languages. Itï¿½s Greek to me! I donï¿½t understand it.

One of the greatest dangers of the Greek language is that the study of Greek often leads to Greek thought patterns, and to study of Greek philosophy and theology, which are often very contrary to a Hebrew mindset, and contrary to the God of the Scripture that we have come to know in the Tanakh and the NT. Even if some books of the NT might have been written originally in Greek, we need to understand them as they were written, from someone with a Hebrew mindset, not a Greek mindset. The Greek gods were fickle and unpredictable, whereas YHWH ï¿½ the God of the Bible ï¿½ never changes. As Malachi 3:6 states, ï¿½For I am YHWH, I change notï¿½ï¿½ The Greek mindset has brought in such ï¿½heresiesï¿½ as Replacement Theology and Dispensational Theology. We need to get back to the original intent of the Scriptures, to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We need to know Yeshua, our Jewish Messiah, not the Greek god he has been turned into by much of Christendom.

ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ [1] ï¿½Common Era,ï¿½ the Jewish equivalent to ï¿½A.D.ï¿½ [2] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III 39, 16. [3] Ibid., V 8, 2. [4] Ibid., VI 25, 4 [5] Ibid., III 24, 6 [6] Ve Viris Inlustribus 3. [7] We hasten to add, there was no nation called Palestine Was the new testament written originally in aramiac? - Aramaic Thoughts - Language Studies - StudyLight.org Was the New Testament written originally in Aramiac? Resource Toolbox Send Link to a Friend There are some scholars who hold the view that all or at least a large part of the New Testament was written originally in Aramaic. In the next couple of weeks I will deal with these authors, briefly presenting their arguments and responding to them.

For now, I want to say that I do not find their arguments compelling. However, these authors have some useful points to make and insights to offer. Even though none of the New Testament books originated in Aramaic (with the possible exception of Matthew, which I have already discussed), the authors of the New Testament were for the most part men whose native language was Aramaic. They were also fluent in the koine (common) Greek of the first century, as both a spoken and a written language. It is often difficult for modern Americans to comprehend this dual fluency (usually referred to as bilingual) because it is foreign to our own experience. However, most modern Europeans would have no difficulty grasping the concept. A significant percentage of educated modern Europeans are bilingual, or even trilingual, knowing well two or three of the common European languages such as English, Spanish, French, German, and Italian. However, even bilingual persons tend to think, and especially to write, in the patterns of their native, or first, language. That is why a German author, writing in English, will tend to "sound" different from an English author writing in English.

It is because his writing habits, and his writing patterns, are imbued with the patterns of his native German. It is the reason that, for many readers, the English of Joseph Conrad sounds stilted. Conrad was Polish, and his writing in English reflects to an extent the fact that English was not his native language. The significance of this for the New Testament is as follows: the Greek of the New Testament was written by men whose native language was Aramaic, a Semitic language. They wrote the New Testament material in Greek, an Indo-European language. There are significant structural differences between Semitic and Indo-European languages, specifically between Aramaic (and Hebrew) and Greek. One significant difference is that the usual word order in Aramaic sentences is verb-subject-object. In Greek, the word order is usually subject-verb-object, as it is in English. In addition, word order is more significant in Aramaic than it is in Greek. In Greek, nouns (and adjectives) have case endings: nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative. The nominative case is the "subject" case. The accusative is the "direct object" case.

The dative is the "indirect object" case. The genitive is the "possessive" case. (For any grammarians among my readers, I apologize for the preceding gross over-simplification, but this is not a grammar column.) Thus in Greek the function of a word in a sentence is indicated by its case ending. As a result, word order is less significant than in Aramaic or English. For example, in Greek the sentence "the boy entered the building" could be stated by putting "the building" before "entered" and "the boy" after "entered." The case endings on "boy" and "building" would indicate which was the subject and which was the object. English is dependent on word order, as is Aramaic to a lesser extent. These differences between Aramaic and Greek show up frequently in the New Testament. After spending a couple of weeks dealing with arguments in favor of an original Aramaic New Testament, we will move on to consider how these differences make for interesting reading in the New Testament. history - Why was the New Testament Written in Greek? - Christianity Stack Exchange Why was the New Testament Written in Greek?

up vote 13 down vote favorite 2 New Testament was written in Greek. But Jesus lived in Israel and was supposed to be the next King of Israel. I think it is probably fair to assume that he and his twelve apostles spoke Hebrew. Then why would the New Testament be written in Greek? I would think at least the Gospels part would be written in Hebrew. letusreason.org/Biblexp177.htm – SSumner Mar 29 '13 at 4:29 1 @SSumner That is a good synopsis. – fredsbend Mar 29 '13 at 5:12 3 Think about Greek in the New Testament as the role the English language is playing today. It's understood by a lot of people in a lot of different cultures all around the world. This is why the language of this site is English, probably a lot of our readers don't speak English as their native language, but still English is the most practical language you can use today for a message to reach people all around the world.

– vsz Nov 29 '13 at 22:47 up vote 17 down vote accepted First, actually, it was very likely that Jesus and His followers spoke no fewer than these three languages: Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. What language did Jesus speak? Aramaic was the primary language of the land, Greek was the language of business, education, and for communication with foreigners (because it was a wide-spread language), and Hebrew was the religious language of the Jews and was primarily reserved for prayers, religious teaching, and communication with other Jews. But why did they choose Greek? Well, first, we don't have the originals of any of the texts, but it is likely that most were written in Greek, however, there is some debate over a few of the books, just for your information. The primary reason would be portability. Greek was a very wide-spread language. Hebrew and Aramaic were not. Further, after Peter had an encounter with Gentiles that had him declare that the message of Christ's resurrection was for the Gentile too, it became an international matter that all hear the Good News.

48 So he ordered that they [Gentiles] be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 10:48 Greek was the language that made sense. It was wide-spread, it was for the foreigner, and the Jew knew it as well. Greek was the language that would affect the most people. 1 Many people believe that this is what the Bible means when it says in Galatians 4:4, that the fullness of time had come. The time and culture were properly set at that moment, and that moment only, to accept and spread the good news. – David Morton Mar 29 '13 at 11:38 @DavidMorton I've heard that before , but that seems to miss the point. Was God constrained by technology or language? God was not "waiting around" for the Greeks to come along and build roads. He ordered the whole universe! Ask why He placed the Greeks at the time of His coming, not why He came at the time of the Greeks. We have absolutely no idea why God thought that was the right time. Likewise, I do not think this question is asking only about the practical aspects.

– Alypius Mar 29 '13 at 16:17 Good points, and of course, God isn't constrained by technology. I think it emphasises God's wisdom in that he put all the right people at all the right places at all the right times, all throughout history, distinctly for the purpose of preparing all things for Christ's coming. I agree 100% with your overall argument. God is no servant to history, instead history is God-ordained to serve His purposes. In other words, the fullness of time came, not with a God in waiting, but because He orchestrated it, including, but not limited to, technology & political and social climates. – David Morton Mar 29 '13 at 16:34 1 @DavidMorton When talking about things like this I prefer to look at history as a symphony that God conducts. He orchestrates all the parts, signaling one after the other, following His own score to the very note. He has the violins start when they should, the trumpets sound on cue, and the cymbal clash at exactly the right moment.

– fredsbend Mar 29 '13 at 17:45 @fredsbend Exactly. That's the point I was trying to get across in both my original comment, and in my follow up. – David Morton Mar 29 '13 at 18:04 I don't think this deserves downvotes, but the last sentence seems to imply you are not answering the question, unless you read the whole answer – SSumner Mar 29 '13 at 15:11 1 @SSumner Thank you. Perhaps people were only reading the last sentence. Hopefully this clarifies. – Alypius Mar 29 '13 at 15:52 Actually, I would think it quite likely that the Jews of that time would call Hebrew a sacred language . There is no doubt in my mind that they would have preferred it over Greek if the Gospel was only for the Jew. – fredsbend Mar 29 '13 at 17:50 The article illuminates many things, however, it makes no indication that the Jews of the time heavily used the Septuagint. Remember that the Jews in question are ones in Israel.

The Greek speaking Jews that most refer to are the foreign, usually converted Jews. Also, considering the completion of Herod's Temple Hebrew was likely on the rise, in that area. This might have combine with Jewish nationalism, which was present, if it were not for Peter baptizing Gentiles. But now we are moving into hypothetical histories. Not too constructive. – fredsbend Mar 29 '13 at 20:23 What were the original languages of the Bible? | Bibleinfo.com Home » Bible Questions » What were the original languages of the Bible? What were the original languages of the Bible? The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek. Discover: Who wrote the Bible? HISTORY OF BIBLE TRANSLATIONS The first translation of the English Bible was initiated by John Wycliffe and completed by John Purvey in 1388. A few chapters of the books Ezra (ch. 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26) and Daniel (ch. 2:4 to 7:28), one verse in Jeremiah (ch. 10:11, and a word in Genesis (ch.

31:47) are written, not in ancient Hebrew, but in Aramaic. Aramaic is about as closely related to Hebrew as Spanish is to Portuguese. However, the differences between Aramaic and Hebrew are not those of dialect, and the two are regarded as two separate languages. From which language was the KJV was translated? Here is how it came about: 54 college professors, preachers, deans and bishops ranging in ages from 27 to 73 were engaged in the project of translating the KJV. To work on their masterpiece, these men were divided into six panels: two at Oxford, two at Cambridge, two at Westminster. Each panel concentrated on one portion of the Bible, and each scholar in the panel was assigned portions to translate. As guides the scholars used a Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, a Greek text for the New. Some Aramaic was used in each. They consulted translations in Chaldean, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian and Dutch. And, of course, they used earlier English Bibles—at least six, including William Tyndale's New Testament, the first to be printed in English. So what language did they use? Everything that was available.

The first American edition of the Bible was probably published some time before 1752. The Bible has been translated in part or in whole as of 1964 in over 1,200 different languages or dialects. Question Categories

Question: In what language was the New Testament originally written?
Answer: In Greek